Shrub working on defining marriage as purely heterosexual

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-07-30 11:40am

Excite News wrote:WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush said Wednesday he has government lawyers working on a law that would define marriage as a union between a woman and a man, casting aside calls to legalize gay marriages.

"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and I believe we ought to codify that one way or the other and we have lawyers looking at the best way to do that," the president said a wide-ranging news conference at the White House Rose Garden.

Bush also urged, however, that America remain a "welcoming country" - not polarized on the issue of homosexuality.

"I am mindful that we're all sinners and I caution those who may try to take a speck out of the neighbor's eye when they got a log in their own," the president said. "I think it is important for our society to respect each individual, to welcome those with good hearts."

"On the other hand, that does not mean that someone like me needs to compromise on the issue of marriage," he added.

Bush has long opposed gay marriage but as recently as earlier this month had said that a constitutional ban on gay marriage proposed in the House might not be needed despite a Supreme Court decision that some conservatives think opens the door to legalizing same-sex marriages.

The Supreme Court struck down a Texas law that made homosexual sex a crime, overturning an earlier ruling that said states could punish homosexuals for having sex.

Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia fired off a blistering dissent of the ruling.

The "opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned," Scalia wrote. The ruling specifically said that the court was not addressing that issue, but Scalia warned, "Do not believe it."

Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., is the main sponsor of the proposal offered May 21 to amend the Constitution. It was referred on June 25 to the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution.

To be added to the Constitution, the proposal must be approved by two-thirds of the House and the Senate and ratified by three-fourths of the states.

Suuuuure. America isn't "polarized" on the issue of homosexuality; it just likes to make sure that homosexuals don't have the same rights as heterosexuals.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-07-30 11:46am

A lot of this nonsense could be avoided if civil marriage was reclassified as "civil domestic union", and the definition of marriage we left up to the individuals. You could still say marriage is a union between a man and a woman if that's what you or your church believed, but as far as the state is concerned, a homosexual couple, bound by a contract of civil union, would be entitled to the same rights and privledges as a heterosexual couple bound by the same contract.

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2003-07-30 11:48am

Okay... here's the main question. Is Marriage a LEGAL institution, a Religious institution, or simply an agreement between two consenting adults?

if it's the last option, then the Government should Butt Out.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-07-30 12:23pm

LadyTevar wrote:Okay... here's the main question. Is Marriage a LEGAL institution, a Religious institution, or simply an agreement between two consenting adults?

if it's the last option, then the Government should Butt Out.

It's both of the first two and more than the third. There's no law about two concenting adults SAYING they're married--I can claim I'm married to the Mixmaster, if that's what tickles my fancy--but in the state's eyes, a marriage only exists when there's a legal contract between two adults. Without that contract, a couple is unmarried in the eyes of the law. If they get healthcare on the job, the spouse is not entitled to benefits. If one gets put on trial, there's no spousal privledge to prevent the state from forcing the other to testify. If one dies without a legal will, the other is not considered next of kin. And so on and so forth.

Marriage is also a religious rite. It's one of the seven Catholic sacraments and a major ceremony in nearly all religions. A religiously recognized marriage is NOT necessarily a legally recognized one, and vice versa. Certain liberal Protestant denominations allow gays to marry, but unless they live in Vermont or Hawaii, those marriages aren't legally recognized. Religions, being private organizations, are free to define marriage however they like. If I find a church willing to do it, I could be married to the Mixmaster by a pastor and, in the eyes of God (as interpreted by that church), I'd be bound to love, honor, and cherish my Mixmaster until death do us part.

The problem is when the line between civil and religious marriage is blurred. Nearly all of the arguments against gay marriage are basically religious: "marriage is a sacred bond between man and woman". This is nonsense. So far as the state should be concerned, marriage is a contract between two consenting adults to form a joint household. That's why I advocate calling all marriages civil unions, and allowing individuals and/or their churches define what "marriage" is.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-07-30 12:40pm

Hey Shrubby, how about you violate the establishment clause publicly! Oh and while you are at it, why not spit in the face of the equal protection act!

Fucking asshole.

If an amendment doesnt go through, there will be a constitutional challenge, and guess what... SCOTUS will probably strike down something so blatantly discriminatory.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-07-30 01:15pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:Hey Shrubby, how about you violate the establishment clause publicly! Oh and while you are at it, why not spit in the face of the equal protection act!

Fucking asshole.

If an amendment doesnt go through, there will be a constitutional challenge, and guess what... SCOTUS will probably strike down something so blatantly discriminatory.

They didn't do shit to the Defense of Marriage Act.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-07-30 01:39pm

I dont think it has been challenged yet...

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-07-30 02:16pm

More reason why we need to change the shrubs at the White House ASAP.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-07-30 02:35pm

hm. . . who shall be our gardener. . .

Johonebesus · Post by **Johonebesus** » 2003-07-30 02:50pm

RedImperator wrote: Certain liberal Protestant denominations allow gays to marry, but unless they live in Vermont or Hawaii, those marriages aren't legally recognized.

Just a note, neither Hawaii nor Vermont has legalized gay marriage. The Hawaiian Supreme Court ruled that refusing to marry gays was discrimination as defined by the Hawaiian constitution, so the Hawaiians amended their constitution to specifically exclude homosexuals from protection from discrimination, at least as concerns marriage. That got rid of the constitutional issue.

Vermont has a domestic partner law that grants some rights to gay couples, but it is not marriage, and is not binding in any other state. Currently, no state has legalized gay marriage. If they did, then the DOMA could be challenged, as it is clearly unconstitutional. I can guarantee you that if some state does give gays the right to marry, the constitutional amendment will get passed by congress in record time.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-07-30 02:54pm

Johonebesus wrote:I can guarantee you that if some state does give gays the right to marry, the constitutional amendment will get passed by congress in record time.

If this amendment gets passed, I can assure you I will marry the first boyfriend I find just for the purpose of making a statement, even tho I do not like marriage.

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2003-07-30 03:48pm

Ok, here's what I don't understand: why do gays want to enter into marriage? (We'll get to the community property stuff in a minute)

Marriage is a traditional union in the eyes of god, between a man and a woman. First of all, popular religion (and God) demonizes gays, so why would gays want legitimacy from such a entity?

Secondly, if one tries to ask a gay couple who the "woman" is in the relationship, they are met with angry retorts as gays still consider themselves men.

There's plenty of lawsuits and laws coming out every day. Why don't gays lobby for a non-religious bonding of lifetime love? Why would they even want to be associated with a traditional institution that looks down on them?

I've read that some gays want to be married so that a life partner won't be shut out by the family of said partner once he dies. Wouldn't a binding will take care of this?

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-07-30 03:51pm

Because marriage is universal human cultural thing. And there is the legel definition of marriage which is the point being argued.

Somehow I'm not really for changing it to some PC term to appeal to fundies' delusions that Christianity owns marriage.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-07-30 04:06pm

Lord Poe wrote:I've read that some gays want to be married so that a life partner won't be shut out by the family of said partner once he dies. Wouldn't a binding will take care of this?

There are legalistic tricks that family members have used to overturn people's wills and get chunks of their estate that they don't rightfully deserve. Those have been used with dismaying frequency against gay partners, because the relationship has no legal status.

The legal status of "married" makes the spouse the legal and de facto next-of-kin, this overrides previous claims to next-of-kinship from other family members.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-07-30 04:16pm

Why is Bush trying to get ANOTHER law written that repeats DoMA, anyway??

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-07-30 04:17pm

Because he is an idiot... That pretty much sums it up...

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-07-30 04:58pm

Dalton: a good many gay people think god DOES want gay marriages.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-07-30 05:29pm

Careful Poe, RedImperator. I got flamed for several pages last time I made such a suggestion.

Bush is fucked up.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-07-30 07:09pm

LadyTevar wrote:Okay... here's the main question. Is Marriage a LEGAL institution, a Religious institution, or simply an agreement between two consenting adults?

if it's the last option, then the Government should Butt Out.

Marriage is all of the above. There are some important myths which need to be addressed:

"Marriage is a Christian tradition". That statement implies that it is somehow exclusive to Christians, which it most certainly is not. People in all parts of the world had marriages and weddings long before the Christians showed up.
"The word "marriage" should be reserved for its original use". Excellent. Since North American marriage predates Christianity, this means that only Native American shamans and elders should be allowed to perform marriage in this country. Nobody else should be allowed to use the term. Oh wait, that wasn't what you meant? Well, too fucking bad, because that's what it means.
"Gays do not have the right to alter the traditional definition of marriage". Why not? Appeals to tradition count as valid arguments now?
"Religious freedom means we don't have to let the courts change our beliefs". Nobody is asking you to change your own beliefs. If your church is full of homophobes, you can continue acting that way, although your church should lose its tax-exempt status immediately. But the institution of marriage has NEVER been exclusive to the Christian church on this continent. Not since BEFORE the nation itself existed. So stop trying to "reclaim" something that was not yours to begin with.

Ultimately, this is all about Christians trying to take a widespread social custom which has ALWAYS cut across race, religion, and culture and turn it into their own exclusive property, by defining its limits FOR EVERYONE based on their own beliefs.

Anyone who wishes to claim otherwise is free to present historical evidence of an era in which the concept of marriage did not exist outside Judeo-Christian religion.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-07-30 07:15pm

RedImperator wrote:A lot of this nonsense could be avoided if civil marriage was reclassified as "civil domestic union", and the definition of marriage we left up to the individuals. You could still say marriage is a union between a man and a woman if that's what you or your church believed, but as far as the state is concerned, a homosexual couple, bound by a contract of civil union, would be entitled to the same rights and privledges as a heterosexual couple bound by the same contract.

Except that people already regard unions and marriages as being the same thing, and have for a very long time. "Marriage" is simply the English word for a concept which presently cuts across cultures and races and religions. "Union" is a much more generic word, which is precisely why "marriage" has been and is still called "marriage".

Removing the word from civil marriages would represent an enormous concession to the legion of assholes who think that a civil marriage isn't a "real" marriage. Appeasement is no way to deal with these donkey-fuckers.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-07-30 07:15pm

Iceberg wrote:Why is Bush trying to get ANOTHER law written that repeats DoMA, anyway??

He wants an amendment. In other words, the Constitution will explicitly declare that only a man and a woman can be married. As I recall, the Defense of Marriage Act allowed the states to decide for themselves. Shrub doesn't want them to have this power.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-07-30 07:17pm

I'd love to hear his moral justification for this.

No wonder Europeans think we're backward.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-07-30 07:18pm

And why's Scalia being such a fuck? I didn't think he was that much of an asshole.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-07-30 07:32pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:And why's Scalia being such a fuck? I didn't think he was that much of an asshole.

Scalia's an ultra-conservative prick. I thought that was common knowledge.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-07-30 07:35pm

Durandal wrote:
Illuminatus Primus wrote:And why's Scalia being such a fuck? I didn't think he was that much of an asshole.
Scalia's an ultra-conservative prick. I thought that was common knowledge.

I wasn't aware of his history. SCOTUS isn't something I've looked into much. I guess I should change that.